but the hot dogs are. now there are concerns that social media platforms are policing what's acceptable to say think after numerous accounts belonging to the protests and conservative figures were banned over alleged hate speech takes a look now at what is considered a violation of tech giants policies. what matters are all of the stories we hear from all of you about the impact your connections have had on your lives you can choose from an infinite range of topics that interest you and then usually follow that topic in the news countries and cultures are brought together like yesterday. that was the online world as we used to know it all fluids to any of those pesky folks trying to set limits and two thousand and eighteen you'll be told to hold up

if twitter decides there are spots of your world that shouldn't be discovered what if you're keen to know what someone has to say let it be former u.s. diplomat peter van buren you might as well unfollowing your interests the man's profile is shut down for good because he jokingly wish someone had eaten the face of his opponent in a twitter rant honestly that's by far not the most offensive thing you can find online but what's abusive about showing mr van buren some support to users who did so god bands to it's not about me it's not about the group of us who have band together i think it's a bigger issue and it's an issue that's that's raised his head this week people like us who are not part of the legacy media we're not new york times shapers of opinion we're also allowed to have our say so if someone from the new york times of the washington post put something up that we know is false we can refute it almost in real time that's very threatening i think for the powers that be this tendency

to want to shut people down if they disagree with you is very dangerous it's going down a very slippery slippery slope toward totalitarianism there's a word for that see and ask. well someone saw it coming when even perhaps the most controversial online talking had alex jones was told get out of here by all major platforms after all they all have to stick to their own rules. and keep people safe from hate speech but then even those anti-left who come to hate jones went on alert could be because they thought someone would click on their profiles and see a hold up pop up alex jones a bad guy but the problem is that once you start saying that hate speech is a rationale for banning people from social media you get in some very very big territory. i'm no fan of jones some other things he has a habit of repeatedly slandering my dad by falsely and absurdly accusing him of

killing j.f.k. but who the hell made facebook the arbiter of political speech free speech includes views you disagree with but there's no turning back when it comes to the online censorship evolution so i'm not sure it works like that anymore mr cruz plus people on the left are ecstatic bring it on is their call and if it is even a crucial step forward in the fight against fake news and fringe extremism. info was is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies the uses sites like facebook can use you to tear a nation the posts these companies must do more than take down one website the survival of our democracy depends on it the world is getting older and a bit more author a tarion only lately a top u.s. intelligence committee democrat has come up with twenty legislative proposals for keeping online platforms under

a close watch brace yourself as you might soon have to say goodbye to things like anonymous posts or accounts that can be tracked down yep that covers just two of the twenty. well amid all the accusations that twitter is silencing debate it was actually one of the few platforms not to ban alex jones who is it is reporters mentioned was banned by a host of social media giants this is led to twitter now being criticized for being too tolerant in response to it is c. tweeted that jones hadn't violated any of the platform's rules meanwhile don't trump has also fallen victim to the senses which threatens his place now on the hollywood walk of fame.

the city council or the council can't ask for anything they want they have no jurisdiction it's the hollywood chamber of commerce they're the ones who decide how they want itself is failed fouled and stories that people have been convicted of crimes and with burglary and mayhem and abuse and they've said no this becomes a part of history if they really wanted seriously to make a statement about donald trump do that but that involves reading and understanding issue you know this is easy it goes to show you there trump.

syndrom has completely hit critical mass and they have all gone completely off the rails. in other news tonight i'm still international in the u.s. led coalition in syria to launch an investigation into civilian deaths from this and strikes on rocker the pentagon recently recently acknowledged seventy seven civilians were killed in this offensive but the rights group warns that that is nowhere near enough. this is only the tip of the iceberg our detailed field investigations covered just four cases but the many survivors and witnesses we spoke to on the ground pointed to civilian death toll in the high hundreds throughout our air and ground campaigns we have used deliberate targeting and strike processes to minimize the impact of operations on civilian populations and infrastructure we hold ourselves accountable through regularly published strike

press releases and civilian casualty reports but we did speak with the head of the swedish professors and doctors for human rights which is appealing to stockholm to use its influence in the un security council to obtain an open and independent investigation into the rack or offensive or selling the noli says that the civilian death toll there is far higher than admit it when you have an amount of a certain amount of fatalities you have also an amount of that you want it syrians significant number of them we all saw and it was fertile gives us that as a consequences of later consequences of that won't it received the injuries received under the book violence or we're defeated or it's good to be. significantly after a proper investigation in my own is the major and it would be approximately once

that was an wounder killings among civilians and that would comprise not only the campaign in rago groups it was those former. denver mode also what do we do really dieting acknowledge reporters in syria and iraq. it's time for the second in a series of reports on the fate of russian families who moved to syria to join islamic state within a quarter of a travel to southern russia to talk to a woman sentenced to eight years in prison on terrorism charges after she followed her husband to syria. the clock is ticking on zagat uts current life sentenced to eight years behind bars for being part of an illegal armed group she won't actually go to jail until her youngest child turns fourteen and she's only one right now less than twelve months

ago her life was old very different i was twenty nine when i left i went to turkey first with my husband i never thought i would end up there. within seven months as i did that was living in syria and pregnant with her third child she says her husband had been drawn to islam and a better life. he told me it was safe to go there he said it wasn't how it was being shown it was snowball me he said no war but the reality turned out to be far more spin anything on t.v. they lived for two years in the city of topic which at the times was under eisel control than they moved to rocca and she spent every day living in feet. even my girl knew she was only eighteen years old but she could tell the difference what was coming and american her kids explain a fighter jet drone she could tell by the sound of it. what are they hiding yes

well they either went downstairs or just simply stayed at home i took them out into the hole and we laid on the floor so that any shrapnel wouldn't hit us zagat had struggles to share her story she tries to stay emotionally distant from the past speaks quietly rarely looking into the camera she says she wanted to return home right from the start i told my husband that i want to go back but i couldn't live but the moment i started talking about it we had fights he told me if you want to leave me but i will not let you take the kids away. and you know he was able to do that he had that sort of character and i was afraid later on when they were living in iraq and her husband was killed in a drone strike leaving that he died all alone with three children i started looking for ways to get out but it's not that easy you can't just leave that place it all has to be done in secret there are people that can sell you out trips i only talk to those who i knew well and one day i was told that there was this wrote that

there was a way out. that claims she had no way dia the life she was leading would leave her on the wrong side of russia's anti terror laws. i stayed at home all the time i had my children i had no time for anything else i was at home taking care of my kids. she was one of the seven women and fourteen children brought back to russia in the autumn twenty seventeen as part of a companion organized by chechen officials to repaginate the families of men who went to fight with islam make terrorists. i am very grateful to everyone who helped launch this campaign to save many women and children. but while they were lucky to escape from the war in syria upon arrival in grozny she was detained by police three months later she was convicted and sentenced for being part of an illegal

armed group. and while the law she broke is designed to help thwart terror attacks some people argue that family members of radicalized individuals should not be targeted. these people need rehabilitation they need to be close to their family members under the care of their mothers they're under huge stress and prison will not help them he will only meet them more harsh i believe it's wrong to put them behind bars for now thank you that leaves with her mother in dagestan she has to report. to the police every month and can't leave the region it's difficult for both her and her brother to find work as they're on the official police list it means they will have to get by on their mother a small salary as a post office worker despite all this they could add sas she's just happy to see her children safe. i was literally suffering that because i was unable to provide

food for my children he told me constantly mom we are hungry they were colliding. and now he's out of the country let's go to the merry go round let's go to the seaside now we go after you where dumb to now we go everywhere. mommy is hard and so my lovely who say fuck. it was you. dagestan. what with the question of how to treat the wives of our still fights is proving to be so divisive we put the issue up for the back. shouldn't be allowed to return home they have left the safety of this country and gone over to fight with. whatever you want to call them should not be allowed back into this country what are they going to do when the compaq area you know we've got enough people in our prisons now radicalized in our yoav if you brick a law especially criminal laws in england. and you break it somewhere

you can actually charge but that charge had to stand in court they're not responsible for the action though their husbands or their or their kids or their son in the book. as a terrorist this is not their responsibility they're made that decision now to say that they went out there didn't know what they were going out there told didn't know what the door and there is ridiculous there was radicalized they've got out there if the culture that they're in at the moment has a death sentence so be it that's up to them but we cannot just charge anyone because we look we think she what he was she was a wife she knew about everything she could not make a decision some of them were soldiers some of the were recruited yes we agree on this but let's differentiate between and isn't and being who has been a terrorist and who's been a criminal this is very critical because we want to go to the cycle of violence. as our as asian women have all of this there and now you know it's their make their own decisions on life please tell me what they said so their wives where there was

going what you went out shopping what you were not a holiday there much a child i mean i just you know where i i don't know much i'm not exactly what was going on are i give an example he tells his wife we go into a trip to turkey ok this is where you had this whole i thought yeah times we're going to a trip holiday to turkey to south of turkey in turkey you're stuck we're going to syria why because this is what islam is asking us to this is what we have to fight you are my wife you have to listen to me if not i would divorce you and you have no papers how are you going to turn back home if you take your wife to rock. places like this and the teller take you passport away from you how are you going to turn home to sleep my wife or i are not going to be old and i'm sure i passed my wife running behind that brain and i would not allow that truck in there made that decision now just says they went out there didn't know what they were going out that show didn't know what the husband was door and they shout so ridiculous there was radicalized they've gone out that if the culture that they're in a moment has

a death sentence so be it that shock to them they have made that decision they've gone out there we do not want these people back here. that's how the news looking so fast i hear not say neil harvey will be here at the top of the next hour to keep updated threatening. and indeed this is. the church secret indeed just like priests accused of sexually abusing children can get away with it quite literally i like to

call this the geographic solution. what the bush admin's to do then he finds out that the priest is is a perpetrator is simply moves him to a difference far worth the previous standards not not the highest ranks of the catholic church help conceal the accused priests from the police and justice so something that is as old as the eye and then i think you'll hear about it tuesday's out in. this. case both. seem wrong but all in all just don't call. me. yet to shape out just a couple etiquette and in gay training because the trail. when something is find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground.

greetings and salutations. love him or hate him online talk show host alex jones and as in full wars brand is currently sitting at the epicenter of a first amendment hurricane this week that when all said and done could actually forever change the very nature of free speech inside the united states of america not only is jones facing a civil lawsuit brought against him and his advertisers by some of the families of the sandy hook shooting over claims and innuendos of hoaxes and crisis actors but on monday this week social media tech giants facebook apple and u two pulled the plug on the alex jones show the new york times reports that facebook removed four pages belonging to mr jones including one with nearly one point seven million

followers you to terminator mr jones channel which had more than two point four million subscribers and billions of views on its videos repeatedly violating its policies including its prohibition on hate speech jones responded with his usual flair for the dramatic declaring on twitter understand this the censorship of info wars just vindicates everything we've been saying now who will stand against tyranny and who will stand for free speech we're all alex jones now. but it's the lawsuit that according to wired could actually have a bigger influence on the future of free speech wire reports that whether jones wins or loses his suit according to first amendment lawyers will be built we will be a building block for the way we think of free speech in the age of the internet you see not only is this case about alex jones and free speech but it's also a case that could redefine just who and who is not considered a public figure and subject to libel in the age of instagram the selfie and the you

tube channel so with free with the future of free speech to lie torn between the wild rantings of ballots jones and corporate media's desire to sanitize you know it's time to start watching the hawks. to. get the. real thing. at the bottom. like you that i got. three. weeks ago. well horrible to watch in the parks i am a robot and i'm top of the law list and i just saw the two pictures behind me and i i actually saw her bergen alan jones on the same wall so this is fascinating

actually what's going on what he's whirling around like nobody alex i worked with alex a long time ago on conspiracy theory about on the show a long while back and all of that says international but i did meet up once and. you know this is one of those kind of things where yeah you knew the talent but you knew the two friends were going to collide it so yeah it doesn't mean this is inevitable it was or have it all when you have someone who is that purposely controversial and pushes the button so. and what's interesting is when you when you look at this. like wired kind of pointed out brilliantly is that they're saying that yes the facebook the you tube that's an issue you know that's one issue for every speech that should be looked at but the other thing is that is there's libel court this court case of these involved with the families of the sandy hook. because here's we're liable it's really interesting in the supreme court case in new york times versus old when the court basically gave status to public officials

and figures they gave them special status because they are said the defamation against them has to include actual malice behind it and giving knowingly false statements and reckless disregard for the truth they did that to set the bar really high so you know politician so people could have three speech they could criticize politicians they could criticize public figures and not have to worry about getting sued for it if they're giving their opinion right you know so that's why they set the bar so high what's interesting though about the with the jones case and this is the you know not only is there basically this will decide if in the internet era because something happens to you and then let's say you like with the families and let's say they're speaking out on gun rights online or something like that are they now public figures because what what you know that's the whole essence of the cases like you know they're suing jones jones as far as saying well wait i i'm not

they're public figures i'm just speaking my opinion i'm doing all this like they can't be suing me for this because it's all of kind of wrapped up in the free speech. and yeah i think i was down finance to take some quiet time and and go over i have free speech and a lot of things i mean first of all i don't even know what to think about alex jones anymore because first he spent years and years being this crusader of the truth and then the many he gets into a heated divorce battle suddenly it's it's all just announced it's all. it's entertainment i'm not this guy who really bad guy it's all for quotes but now we're supposed to believe that all of i'm supposed to care that he got kicked out of a corporation's platform a platform that has way more problems or free speech before you ever went off a bad he was on there to make a buck he was on twitter to make a buck he was on you tube to make a buck if he really believed in the things he was talking about he want him banned

on those platforms they stand for everything he says he's against what's interesting is how it's interesting points but what's also interesting is but what's also interesting about this is if you take the idea of alex jones out of the equation and just look at what's happening with all of this there is some major free speech issues i think look there right private industry has the right to do whatever they want on their platforms that correcting your site up to do but what i would say i'm curious is like in this age of the internet in this age of like you know rampant bre speech for everyone that is the internet's wild west you know. what really strikes me about this is do we need to redefine free speech to go beyond just government like you know it should govern you know government cannot censor speech right and no no government is censoring his speech right but what i'm saying is should we should we look at and say does free speech carry over to the private industry as well. no. i was no i don't i

don't i don't think it does i think you have to have that difference you can't you can't sit and say that the government because then great idea the government will then be in charge of regulating how all the private industries take care of whether they're censoring people or not so who decides whether facebook is actually censoring somebody so all the government's going to decide what's free speech and what was not one interesting that makes me nervous i'm not a fan of for just. about one year ago this weekend the unite the right rally in charlottesville virginia it brought white supremacists white nationalists and their fans to that city for the idea of saving an american civil war a loser statue general robert e. lee it was then that a self-styled nazi sympathizer murdered thirty two year old how their higher who

was part of the counter protests now this weekend the organizers of that deadly charlottesville rally will be holding their unite the right rally here in washington d.c. and what do you know it the police department. where they hide white supremacist wanted to give give them special trains and accommodations for the white supremacists taking part in a rally however in a statement to the press amalgamated transit union local six eight nine president jackie jeter said we draw the line of giving special accommodation to hate groups and hate speech the union has declared that it will not play a role in their special accommodation of course that didn't stop fortune magazine and others to proclaim that the d.c. the d.c. transit union brief uses a very white nationalist to unite the right rally by the way guys that that my friends is what's called. the issue of flavor isn't squashed. of anyone's right to free speech the issue is that the unite the right participants were going to be

given special accommodations to and from their rally. when i think about it there were no special transfer the women's march there were no special transfer the march for life the march for science the national pride march the juggalos or even the trump supporting mother of all rallies didn't get their own trains and as of every legal protest the government cannot impede your ability to protest but they're under no obligation to give you your own special train to your protest but the union has every right to refuse to give them special service actually that's democracy in action where you see who do so. now there are a lot of heat about this because you will seem to think that i'm in the wrong for supporting the union in the us but i think it's also because they think they said i refuse to serve you at all that no the union just said we would do something special was nobody to get treated like everybody else you know what the party was like everybody knows that's going to happen you know if you're worried about you know some have you on the train line because you're carrying

a confederate flag and white power sort of like that doesn't or a lot of well you know that's what he wanted you know what you know what african-americans have to walk around worrying they're going to get shot or the police are going to be called on them for breathing and yet white nationalists who literally are coming here to spread an ideology that is against everything that america fairness for we're supposed to give them a special train sorry sorry a suite is doesn't work that way you have to just like everybody else that's was really fascinating about this story is. really what's interesting too is it's just the kind of attitude around it and everything like that going on is just really amazing because of. the we're talking a lot of free speech on the show today at the end of the day it's one of the most sacred aspects is one more segment that we have you know in our constitution and that's why it's important that we tackle each one of these issues you can't just leave blake and you can make blake and know where you are the food is really needs to. excuse as an excuse to do certain things as we've talked about

a lot it's supporting the right of free speech means supporting speech you don't like just as you do like that also doesn't preclude you from the consequences that are true and one of the things that the united organizer from last year jason had told the washington post that it was about white that this whole thing was about white people are being denied the ability to organize on political organizations the way other groups too free of harassment to face the issues important to us first of all where if they've been stopped they have their they had a second larger having another one they're getting everything that people want to give them special trains what protest is free of harassment what protest is free of people who disagree with you well it's the whole you do the you know you have one side agrees or disagrees and that's called discourse in this country and that's where i go to the ideas of well you know it's just ridiculous i don't understand this at all it's just strange to be in science actually is i think what so what you really have to put into perspective about this tonight the right you know we're

talking about the tiki torch and the people like i was just there to once they got caught being there they were like what's premises to except they're yelling jews will not overtake. the thing about that is that it doesn't actually help their cause a lot of the science into protests show those kinds of protests don't have to have a thing about it there was a study out last year at stanford and the university of toronto and they were looking at extreme protest matters rob miller a stanford sociologist to and co-author of the study stated that the reason that extreme protesters were dissuaded is that less radical bystanders couldn't identify with that people generally don't see themselves as disruptors of the social order even for the causes they believe in so what you're saying is even if they agree with you on some level i about any kind of mistreatment or their you know legitimate times when conservatives or people in certain popular opinions.